Talk:Norman Geras

"Opponent of the Slaughter of Western Civilians"
What was meant by the statement that Geras is "an opponent of the slaughter of western [sic] civilians"? Is this meant to imply that Geras condones the slaughter of non-Western civilians? Since this is a BLP there's no attribution for this view, I'm removing it until someone provides a source. --Gotophilk (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Still a Marxist
This article says nothing of Geras' erstwhile status as a Marxist. It appears that he is now an apostate, though nominally Marxist -- which the Economist thought good news. Is he experiencing a transitional period? It is worth noting that he supported the first imperialist assault on Iraq, which must be seen as a prelude to his loss of faith. -- mr9


 * See Talk:Euston Manifesto. In fact, I'll cut and paste the relevant text here:
 * Norm insists that, whatever others call him, he is still a Marxist---and definitely not post-Marxist. He's probably better qualified than most people to judge this: what with his being a recognized expert on Marxism and his being Norman Geras. Counsell


 * That comment comes from a friend of Prof Geras. (By Wikipedia rules, it cannot be used in an article, but it has the virtue of explaining Prof Geras's position quite clearly.) Cheers, CWC 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to see much in Prof. Geras's recent work that points to any Marxist affiliation. He seems uninterested in the economy or labour movement, and to a large extent seems satisfied with governments in the western world and their allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.192.94 (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the last comment. Geras's work seems to me entirely to lack the rage of Marxism. It is very noticeable that his blog contains next to no comment about the current and recent economic crises. While people are losing their jobs and public services are under attack, Geras appears to be oblivious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.51.233 (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Norm's comment on the middle east situation (Normblog 23 January 2008) deserves praise: 'International law also specifically forbids lobbing missiles on to civilian population centres'. At a time when some are defending such actions, this is encouraging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.144.242 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Norman's blog is still full of justifications of the pro-Blair line he took about the Iraq war. His current approach seems to be that he didn't realise there would be mass murder of civilians. But lots of people did spot that, and Norman spends a lot of his time attacking them, imputing base motives to them, etc. As we all know, it's common sense that civilian murder is the result of 'lobbing missiles on to civilian population centres' (to use his own phrase, supra). The lobbing also destroyed vast amounts of Iraqi infrastructure, resulting in more deaths - as we all know. Could it be that Norman thought that the UK/US bombs were /ideas/, which might 'take out' the Baathist argument without harming innnocent individuals or their services? Maybe that's how it looks from Manchester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.188.76 (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I haved a soft spot for Geras. Despite the (largely theoretical) stuff about war on his blog, I suspect that he wouldn't hurt a fly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.195.246 (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Within the past few days Geras has been arguing fiercely that Blair could not have promised to give President Bush his support - because it was the UK parliament's privilege to decide such matters. Yet that is exactly what Mr Blair told the Chilcot enquiry he had done. If Norm is going to support Blair, he should support him, warts and all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.208.10 (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

All this is a pity, because Geras can be a subtle thinker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.6.184 (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Geras's recent essay on his Marxism may be of interest: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2011/02/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-marxist.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.192.35 (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In his blog Geras has recently been commenting negatively on justifications for the slaughter of children. This is a question he will probably revert to during his discussion of the bombing of Libya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.0.178 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Er maybe not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.0.178 (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The view that, just because we can't withdraw the royal wedding invitation to the king of Bahrain, we should nonethless bomb Libya, doesn't appeal to me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.186.203 (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I used to enjoy Normblog more than I do now. Nowadays there is just too much in it about how Norm was right about Iraq, and how "the left" was wrong. It used to be much jollier! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.9.131 (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Geras can be a little Gerasian, but there is much more to his blog than self-justification about Iraq. There's cricket, films, music, the alternative vote, you name it! It's an adult blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.80.145 (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Very amusing to see the recent cuts in the article! ;-) Geras is a self-confessed drooler over Blair; why conceal the fact!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.214.120 (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Geras could be better described as a neo-Conservative than a Marxist. On foreign affairs I suspect his views are close to Douglas Murray's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.30.42 (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a trace, or more than a trace, of sentiment in Norm's insistence that he is a Marxist. There certainly isn't any discernible Marxism in his analyses of what is going on in the world. There is a good parallel to this in the way he speaks about politics in general. At the general election he said that he was going to vote Labour because the Labour Party is more attentive to the poor. But if Norm has said a single word about the havoc that the coalition government has been wreaking amongst the poor since then - privatisation, cuts in public services, especially for women - I have missed it. The nearest he has got has been several posts about the welfare of members of the royal family. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.143.250 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with those who regret the deterioration in the blog. For a recent juvenile entry see: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2011/07/talking-about-kevin.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellister (talk • contribs) 09:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Two things occur to me about Geras's blog. First, although he speaks about and advocates war a lot, he never refers to soldiers or bombs. The whole thing is abstract in the extreme. Secondly, he won't ever debate with experts like Patrick Cockburn or Tariq Ali. He only ever jousts with easy targets. The blog would be much better if Geras took more risks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.111.63 (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

An addendum to the last post. Norm writes at length about torture. But you will very seldom, unless I am much mistaken, see him refer to, say, Baha Mousa. Norm's pronouncements on the subject are rather like those of certain governments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.30.42 (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

PS In the same way he writes about capital punishment, but not about Troy Davis (see his blog for 22 Sept. 11) ... In other words, no reference to the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.111.63 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking at Normblog for several years now. I think some of the criticisms above are a little unkind. Geras doesn't pretend to be an expert on political questions - he seems to regard himself as a philosopher. I suspect he has been an academic all his life, and that he doesn't know much about how people live. There is room for academic criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.89.197 (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Trotskyist?
This article was in Category:Trotskyists. I have removed it, as there don't seem to be any sources that support this allegation. If anyone can provide a source demonstrating that Professor Geras identifies as a Trotskyist, please do so; otherwise, the category should not be re-added. Robofish (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

'All the woes of the region since 1967 were caused by one thing: the illegal occupation of Palestinian land by Israel, and the USA’s decades-long support for it and its consequences. Hanging on to the territories has become Israel’s be all and end all, and the US has been left impotent even in the face of one of its own citizens being brutalised by its “strongest ally” this weekend.' Independent, 9 July 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.235.41.145 (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Today would have been a sad day for Norm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.85.143 (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

RIP
Word coming in that he's died. CulturalSnow (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)